2008-04-20

Science and God

There is no room for God in science. In a quest for the materialistic understanding of how things work, how else could it be? If a working scientist had the results of one of her experiments incontrovertibly prove that "God did it," what should she do? Well, she should publish her results, make sure the priests know, and then go back to see if she could figure out a way where the phenomenon under study could happen without God's intervention. What else could a scientist do?

When the answer becomes "God did it" then the nature of exploration changes. It goes from trying to identify the outward material interactions that produce a result to the inward reflection on the meaning of God. Now, there's nothing wrong with trying to understand the human relationship with God, but scientists don't get paid to do that, priests do. Science is in the business of asking and answering questions. Like a 2-year old child running around going "but why," every answer science comes up with just leads to more questions. "God did it" is the ultimate shut-up answer. But why? God did it. But how? God is all powerful. Why did God do it? God is all knowing. End of discussion. How is a scientist suppose to make a living with that?

The theory of evolution is the perfect example. Scientists working on it have made a lot of progress on natural explanations. These explanations have built technologies and techniques that feed billions of people. They have to keep going, making more progress, or in the next few decades the billions of new people being born are going to starve to death. Should these scientists just say "oh, yeah, that Intelligent Design thing is probably right; I guess we should go back to school and train to be accountants?" What else would these scientists do? Try to figure out how to manipulate God; try to make God work the way they want Him to? What about all those billions of people that will starve to death? Is that just God's will?

No, like it or not, the work of science is to try to figure out how things might work without God's intervention. So far, you have to admit, they've done an awesome job. Too bad the priests haven't made that much progress on understanding our relationship with God. On the ethical/moral side, the world could stand a little progress. Maybe if priests spent a little less time fighting scientists, they might get somewhere, for a change.

19 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

Well, I've been told too many things are mathematically impossible, only to see them happen. I've sat in a class listening to my professor tell me that the maximum data that can be sent down copper wire was 3200 bytes per second. What are they doing now? Oh, last I checked it was in the Gigabytes per second, and counting.

But anyway, my response to your point is here. Basically, if God does exist, he would have to make a natural explanation for creation or we would lose free-will.

As for kool-aid... well, as the story goes, you pick the red pill or the green one. I prefer to see the real world; as far as I can tell, God evolved.

1) You state that DNA is a codex and that no codex has occurred naturally, so DNA could not occur naturally but was rather created by some god. Well, maybe DNA is a codex and it did occur naturally, no god required. I'll add the obvious counter-question: besides life, where would you expect a codex to be created naturally? In what other natural system would a codex have any chance of coming into being? I can't think of one, so you're argument that we've not found any other one than DNA is rather pointless.

2) You state that random events cannot create information. Well, by themselves, that's true. But, if you add a form of selection, then new information will result. Here's a simple example: we have a computer program that generates random numbers. We take those random numbers and try to divide them with every whole number except 0, 1, and itself. Those numbers that have no divisor get put in a list. Given time, this crude system will generate a list of prime numbers (Information) from random input AND selection criteria. Simple and pointless, yes, but it does generate information.

Evolution - biological, social, mechanical, etc. - is not just about mutation, it is about selection. Mutations just create variations to select. Yes, most mutations are counter-productive, but not all. The "not all" part is what counts. Some of them will simply be neutral, no benefit or hindrance to reproduction. Over time, those neutral benefits will build up until the selection pressure changes, where some of them might actually become useful. Sometimes, very rarely, a mutation might actually provide an immediate benefit, but hugely positive mutations are not really necessary, just mutations that are not so bad that they prevent the life-form from reproducing. People seem to think that some huge mutation comes along and that individual becomes a new species. It doesn't work that way. A species just slowly builds up variations over time, and then the environment changes - some variations survive, others don't. That's evolution.

For now, these are curiosities. However, it is my expectation that synthetic evolution will come to dominate most engineering fields in the not too distant future. It will make for interesting debates when evolution-deniers realise that the new "non-staining" miracle fabric in their underwear was engineered on a computer running an evolution algorithm.

I believe you are conflating belief with worship. Belief in God, or anything for that matter, does not constitute worship. I believe in hamsters; I do not worship them. I believe in evolution, I do not worship it.

I believe that the job of science is to provide natural explanations for observable phenomenon. This holds true irrespective of God's existence; the existence of God is irrelevant to modern science. I believe that evolution is a rational explanation for life as we know it. I believe that if you're going to start inventing super-natural beings to explain things, you might as go all the way and assume that nothing is natural, that it is all an illusion.

But, I worship nothing. I keep reading about how people declare that "evolution is a religion" but it makes no sense. How does someone worship evolution? What are the rules? Where does one go to worship? Are there dietary restrictions? How do you pray? It's nonsense. Yes, I believe in the evolution of life on earth. I've arrived at that belief without perfect proof; I think it's just the most likely explanation. But, there is no worship, no religion. Belief does not equal worship. How can a system of belief without worship be a religion?

David Here are some quotes that make some sense to me."... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ... H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980)"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him." Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).

We need not to be so narrow minded, and have a look outside our little box.

Accepting most things on a leap of faith is pretty well necessary in life. I've not conducted any experiments in relativity, but I accept, on faith, that it is likely correct. I accept, on faith, the evolution of the human species from microbial life as the most likely possibility. Like most things in life, I do not have conclusive proof, so I make a leap of faith. Now, this leap, in my opinion, is pretty small compared to all the other human origin theories I've heard. So, yeah, I believe in evolution.

Yes, compared to the theory of relativity, proof for evolution is weak. But then, relativity has to be one of the most proven theories that we've ever had. It's been tested in a multitude of ways; ways evolution could never be tested in. Baring the human ability to time-travel, the theory of evolution will never have that level of proof. However, the level of proof it does have is pretty substantial, way more than any alternative. On the other hand, I expect that there are many technologies you use that are based on scientific theories far less supported by evidence than evolution is.

I am not a biologist, nor do I have a close relationship with anyone of that persuasion, but I can understand how they might get a little "red in the face" when someone attacks it. I often get annoyed with people when they declare "I hate these stupid computers," right before they ask me for help. Having my chosen profession derided in that manner is annoying, to say the least. Evolution is now the central theory of biology. Why? Because it works. Telling a biologist that evolution is wrong is telling that biologist that their life's work is wrong. Of course they are going to be annoyed with you, especially when your proposed alternative leave nothing for a biologist to do.

There is no science in God. The job of a modern scientist is to find natural explanations for the observable world. Declaring that any scientific endeavor is a religion is an oxymoron. It makes no sense. Yes, scientific origin theories take leaps of faith to believe in, just like any other origin theories, religious or otherwise. But, believing in something does not equate to worshiping it. Feeling passionate about something is not the same as worship. Worshiping is a deliberate act that is the foundation of all religions. If you remove this fundamental distinction, then everything you believe in becomes religious. I believe my car exists; I passionately believe Dodge makes the best cars around. Does that make me part of the Dodge religion? No, without worship, there is no religion.

I will repeat my question, in what way do people worship the theory of evolution? Yes, people have said it is a religion, but I disagree. I disagree because I see no worship. No worship, no religion.

“There is no science in God. The job of a modern scientist is to find natural explanations for the observable world.”DaveCan a modern scientist find that GOD is the natural explanations for the observable world ? Or are modern scientist that narrow minded that they are not allowed to think outside the box?

“I will repeat my question; in what way do people worship the theory of evolution?”The religion of evolution has its own doctrines, traditions, lifestyle, and culture. Social Darwinism is the logical extension of the theory of evolution, which manifests itself in many different philosophies and religions. Examples of these are: * The "do your own thing" philosophy. * The "survival of the fittest, and I am the fittest" mentality. * The "rugged individual" type of capitalism (like Ayn Rand). * New Age movement. * Marxism. * Socialism. * Racism. * Nazism. Hitler worshiped and was worshiped

"Can a modern scientist find that GOD is the natural explanations for the observable world ?"

Well, taking the above statement literally, and defining God as 'supernatural' then the obvious a-priori answer is no. With a more generous interpretation, can a scientist find that God powers an observable phenomenon? Yes. It is possible that a scientist discover proof of a supernatural force, even God. But, then what?

This is the point of the article. I'll quote myself here: "If a working scientist had the results of one of her experiments incontrovertibly prove that "God did it," what should she do? Well, she should publish her results, make sure the priests know, and then go back to see if she could figure out a way where the phenomenon under study could happen without God's intervention. What else could a scientist do?" I've written a series of articles in an attempt to disentangle science from religion. We have: this article that separates belief from worship. This article that shows how science is the pursuit of natural explanations. And, this article that attempts to show how there would always be an natural explanation to find, even if God did do it. There is nothing in these articles that categorically states that there is no God, or that God didn't do it. Sure, in the comments, I've explicitly stated my beliefs, but the articles themselves do not require agreement to be valid arguments. A scientist could quite easily worship God while still pursing natural explanations. But, if a scientist gets to "God did it," then what? I'll quote myself again: "'God did it' is the ultimate shut-up answer. But why? God did it. But how? God is all powerful. Why did God do it? God is all knowing. End of discussion. How is a scientist suppose to make a living with that?" It's not a matter of scientists being too narrow-minded to accept that God is somehow responsible for observable phenomenon; it's that said acceptance doesn't lead to more science. For modern science to continue, it has to look for natural explanations.

As for your examples of worship, as you stated, they are extensions into and well beyond Social Darwinism. I freely acknowledge that some people actually worship scientists, that some people have extended scientific theories to absurd, and yes, religious levels. But, it does not follow that belief in the evolution of life on earth necessitates these absurd views. To flip this around, belief in the existence of God does not necessitate dancing with rattlesnakes, even though some people do. Belief in the devil does not necessitate satanic worship. Belief is not worship, not for God or the devil, and certainly not for scientific theories. Yes, there are superficial similarities in any belief, large or small. There are similarities between religious and non-religious organisations; they are just groups of people after all. But, it is worship that defines religion. I don't think the majority of people that accept the theory of the evolution of species are worshiping this theory nor it's proponents. I am certainly not. Thus, declaring it a religion is simply wrong.

I'll again flip this around: do you think belief in God as the Creator is, by itself, a religion?

One“Well, I've been told too many things are mathematically impossible, only to see them happen.”Basic probability still tells you that the odds of evolution are mathematically impossible!Regardless of how much data can be sent down a copper wire. Two“Basically, if God does exist, he would have to make a natural explanation for creation or we would lose free-will.”The job of a modern atheist scientist today is to take away free-will They are not allowed to think outside their little box. Remember The God, who created the universe and provided a way of salvation, has given us the freedom and ability to reject or refuse to believe he exists.

Three “It is possible that a scientist discover proof of a supernatural force, even God. But, then what?”Then they would have to acknowledge HIM. That’s the big problem atheist don’t want there to be a GOD.Four“Do you think belief in God as the Creator is, by itself, a religion?”That’s a good question. First I need your definition of religion.

"Basic probability still tells you that the odds of evolution are mathematically impossible! Regardless of how much data can be sent down a copper wire."

The copper wire example shows that something found to be, and taught to be, mathematically impossible can very well turn out to be easy, once you know how. Maybe it's you who should think outside the box.

"Remember The God, who created the universe and provided a way of salvation, has given us the freedom and ability to reject or refuse to believe he exists."

This is exactly the point I made here. If God wants us to have the ability to refuse to believe in His existence, then He would have to have created natural explanations for all observable phenomenon, like the origins of life on earth. If we were to find incontrovertible proof of His existence, then we wouldn't have the ability to reject or refuse to believe He exists, now would we? Thus, there will always be natural explanations for scientists to find, even if He did do it. Right?

"That’s the big problem atheist don’t want there to be a GOD."

Well, if a scientist, atheist or otherwise, came up with a repeatable experiment that proved God's existence, then that scientist would be pretty famous. However, as I've already stated, after that, the scientist is just going to have to go back to finding natural explanations. It's either that or retrain to be an accountant or priest. Scientists don't get paid to understand the human relationship with God. It's not their job.

"First I need your definition of religion."

Well, as I've already stated, the fundamental distinction is worship. I'll acknowledge that there are other criteria, but worship is the one that distinguishes religion from everything else. And, as I've already stated, outside of a fringe element, I don't see people worshiping scientific theories. Thus, I don't agree that the theory of evolution is a religion.

“ Maybe it's you who should think outside the box.”Are you saying that 1+1 may not be 2?“If we were to find incontrovertible proof of His existence,”Can you give me an example that would convince all people of his existence?

“there will always be natural explanations for scientists to find, even if He did do it. Right?”Your Right most natural explanations would be lies, as they are today. Can you provide me your version of the evolution of birds?

the scientist is just going to have to go back to finding natural explanations. It's either that or retrain to be an accountant or priest.Are you saying that a person believing in creation cannot be a scientist nor do science

If you think that the statistical probability that life could emerge from inanimate chemical reactions, in ways we don't even know yet, is somehow equivalent to a simple mathematical proof, then, well, there's not much point to this is there?

"Can you give me an example that would convince all people of his existence?"

Sure, a new species of life spontaneously appearing from nothing. In other words, a visible act of creation.

"Your Right most natural explanations would be lies, as they are today."

Okay, now there are two ways to read this: 1) there is a vast conspiracy between all biologists, lasting hundreds of years, to somehow destroy people's faith in God. Or, 2) God is creating natural explanations for the origins of life such that our scientists can find it, such that we can maintain the ability to deny his existence.

Anyone believing option 1 is an idiot. Honestly, the idea that all biologists are conspiring to hide the truth is nuttier than the people maintaining the earth is flat and NASA is faking all those shuttle and probe launches. I have no interest in maintaining any debate over this position; I have better things to do with my time.

If you believe option 2, then we are in perfect agreement. But then, why the hostility towards scientist trying to find these God-given natural explanations? Why not let the scientists get on with their job?

Honestly, for a person that states "Remember The God, who created the universe and provided a way of salvation, has given us the freedom and ability to reject or refuse to believe he exists." You sure seem determined to prove that he must exist, even when that proof would destroy everyone's ability to "reject or refuse." Can't you see that the two are mutually incompatible?

"Can you provide me your version of the evolution of birds?"

Sure, in ways that we are still trying to figure out, matter came into existence. Then, at some point, in ways we don't understand yet, chemical reactions became self-sustaining in a way that the evolutionary cycle could happen. Then, eventually, birds evolved. I know, it's a little short on details, but this is a response to a comment in a blog. It's also more detailed than "God did it."

"Are you saying that a person believing in creation cannot be a scientist nor do science"

Well, all this shows is that you have either not read or not understood any of my blog entries or responses to your comments. Honestly, most of your comments seem to ignore what they are commenting on. I'm beginning to tire of this.

“If you think that the statistical probability that life could emerge from inanimate chemical reactions, in ways we don't even know yet, is somehow equivalent to a simple mathematical proof, then, well, there's not much point to this is there?”Sorry Dave I may not be explaining myself that well, but there is a point to statistical probability. One of many reasons that I don’t believe life emerged from a chemical reactions

“Sure, a new species of life spontaneously appearing from nothing. In other words, a visible act of creation.”You know as well as I do, that in two weeks or less there will be a natural explanation for this event and we are back where we started.

I said most natural explanations would be lies“Lies” sorry again, not a good word Maybe a better way of putting it “most natural explanations would be a gigantic leap of faith” “"reject or refuse." Can't you see that the two are mutually incompatible?”Your right, should read just “reject Him”The God, who created the universe and provided a way of salvation, has given us the freedom and ability to reject Him.

My apologies for the delay in responding to your comment; I chose to add a blog entry that I could refer to as a response would otherwise be too long.

"One of many reasons that I don’t believe life emerged from a chemical reactions"

Okay, so you're argument is basically that it is statistically improbable, in fact as near to impossible as statistics will allow, for life to emerge in any way that we know so, instead, God must have created life. I would categorize this as an argument from ignorance, as I describe here, and find it incredibly weak. In short, I am not convinced by arguments from ignorance in general, and certainly not this one. I simply do not agree.

"The God, who created the universe and provided a way of salvation, has given us the freedom and ability to reject Him."

I think you're missing my point here. I agree with the above, of course pre-pending it with "If God does exist..." What I am saying is that if God did create everything and wanted us to be able to not believe in Him, then He would have to have created things in such a way that we would never find proof of His existence. Proof of His existence is incompatible with the ability to reject Him. You can't have both.

Further, given that you can't have both, why not let science get on with finding natural explanations that must exist for the above to be true?

“most natural explanations would be a gigantic leap of faith”

Yes, most theories are not complete and do require a leap of faith to accept. However, many people, myself included, find on analysis that the leap required to accept most of these natural explanations are far smaller than the leap required to accept that God did it. A pragmatic approach is to take the smallest leap possible.

I would like to add a further point to this. A leap to "God did it" is fundamentally useless for anything beyond the personal level, whereas a leap to "this theory is probably right" can at least provide a place to start for further study.

Back to the original blog entry... What do you think a scientist could do after accepting creation as an act of God? What's the next question to answer? Where would a paid scientist go from there?

Back to the subject of religion “Worship is the one that distinguishes religion from everything else.”Without obedience there is no true worship( to be obedient to God the creator = worship = religion )

The question is can one be obedient to Darwinism? If you can than obedience to Darwinism = worship = religion Example: do you live the life of an atheist.

The question was."Can you give me an example that would convince all people of his existence?"

Your answer.Sure, a new species of life spontaneously appearing from nothing. In other words, a visible act of creation.Do you think that this statement is true?“that in two weeks or less there will be a natural explanation for this event and we are back where we started.”

As for your “arguments from ignorance” I need some time to think about it.You have both good points and shallow ones .

I say that science has evolved into the pursuit of natural explanations and that the existence of God or gods is irrelevant to this. A working scientist could believe that God created all life and still look for a way that life could occur naturally.

You state that the theory of the origin of species through evolution is a religion.

I state that the thing that separates religions from other human-community activities is worship.

You state that obedience to God is the root of worship. You follow up by asking if people can be obedient to Darwinism.

Well, let's take a closer look at this obedience thing. Obedience to God seems like a good definition of worship to me. Obviously, we're going to have to remove the God part if your "evolution is a religion" argument will hold. On the other hand, simple obedience is way too loose for defining worship. People are obedient to a lot of things without any question about worshipping them. I won't bother with examples here. So, the question becomes: what is the essence of the thing that is being obeyed to constitute worship, and thus religion?

Probably a good place to look for this would be in the personality cults that have sprung up through history. You mentioned the Nazi party. I've not researched this to any extent but I'll say it's pretty obvious that it went from political party, to personality cult, to bordering on assumed divinity. The same could be said for a few other historical figures. If we took this a step further, we could say that our organized religions went through the personality cult phase, with Christ, Mohammad, etc...

So, we could say that worship is the obedience to the word of someone that is being recognized as divine. So, obey someone because of regular reasons like they could hurt or reward you, or just because you like them, and it's not worship. But, obey someone because you think they are divine, and it's worship. That makes sense to me.

Next, what is the nature of divine? Again, "is a god" is not going to help your argument. So, can this be loosened to include atheist doctrine? People often speak of worshipping their heroes, but I don't think this can be taken literally. I'm having a hard time coming up with an example where people have worshipped through obedience to the word of someone that has not been seen as, or claimed to be, god like.

I'll guess here and say that you think people are obeying the word of Darwin, as a personality cult, to the point where they think he is divine and thus, this obedience becomes worship. I don't think so. I'll admit that there is a fringe element out there that could easily be defined as religious. Some even claim religious status, like the Raelians. But, it's not really fair to judge the norm through the fringe; Christianity has more than its fair share of bizarre fringe elements.

I can't see any reasonable claim to divinity for Darwin, nor can I see another example where people have obviously worshipped the non-divine. Chairman Mao, an atheist communist, was worshipped in a personality cult, but I suspect the people doing the worshipping were attributing god-like attributes to him. Sorry, I don't see Darwinism as a personality cult, nor a religion.

Navigator:

Note:

Sometimes, I just have to write things down. Usually, it's because I'm learning about something new and writing it down is my way of figuring things out. This results in a couple of odd things: First, I don't generally write about things I'm an expert in. Second, I write for an audience of 1, me. Because of this, the tone is often a little odd. I write in a "this is what I know" tone of voice because these are basically my study notes. Sorry about the tone; it's not deliberate.